Did they really eat the apple?

[truetofaith]

The whole idea that the act that caused the fall of man was sex isn’t new. It was already around since the second Temple period - the time of Jesus - actually.

The idea was, that Eve (the Jewish Rabbis were not too fond of Eve - they often fitted the Genesis story into the ‘killer wife’ motif, where the woman is responsible for the man’s downfall) did have sex - not with Adam (who was obviously meant to be her natural partner), but with the serpent. In other words, the fall of man was apparently caused by interspecies adultery. To those people who thought that the serpent was somehow controlled by or was a manifestation of a fallen angel (Satan, Samael, etc.), this idea of Eve having sex with the serpent (= the fallen angel) sort of dovetails with Genesis 6, where the ‘daughters of men’ are said to have relations with the ‘sons of God’ (identified in an idea common at the time as fallen angels).

Some Jews speculated that the sentient serpent / the angel was infatuated with Eve and seduced her. (Apparently, this was triggered by the wording of Eve’s complaint in Genesis 3:13 - “The serpent deceived me,” and God’s statement in verse 15: “I will put enmity between you and the woman,” suggesting that there was no enmity between the two at this point yet.)

The apocryphal work 4 Maccabees (1st century AD) seem to reflect this whole idea of Eve having sex with the serpent in its retelling of the story of the mother and her seven sons who were martyred:

The mother of seven sons expressed also these principles to her children:
“I was a pure virgin and did not go outside my father’s house; but I guarded the rib from which woman was made.
No seducer corrupted me on a desert plain, nor did the destroyer, the deceitful serpent, defile the purity of my virginity.”

The phrase “the rib from which woman was made” is a clear reference to the story of the creation of Eve in Genesis 2, and the mention of the seduction and the defilement by the serpent would seem to refer to the story of Eve and the serpent in Genesis 3. By having the mother boast that she was not seduced by the serpent, the author implies strongly that Eve was. For example, a few even went as far as to suggest that Cain was actually the snake’s son rather than Adam’s, which to them apparently explains why Cain was (inclined towards) evil: he was the fruit of an unnatural union.

A late Jewish retelling (midrash) of biblical stories, the Pirqe De-Rabbi Eliezer (8th-9th century or earlier), adopts this whole ‘Cain was the son of the serpent’ story.

Sammael was the great prince in heaven: the Chayyot had four wings and the Seraphim had six wings, and Sammael had twelve wings. What did Sammael do? He took his band and descended and saw all the creatures which the Holy One, blessed be He, had created in His world and he found among them none so skilled to do evil as the serpent, as it is said, “Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field.” Its appearance was something like that of the camel, and he mounted and rode upon it. The Torah began to cry aloud, saying, ‘Why, O Sammael! Now that the world is created, is it the time to rebel against the Omnipresent? Is it like the time when thou shouldst lift thyself up on high? The Lord of the world “will laugh at the horse and its rider” (Job 39:18).’

…] (Samael) riding on the serpent came to [Eve], and she conceived; afterwards, Adam came to her, and she conceived Abel, as it is said, “And Adam knew Eve his wife.” What is the meaning of “knew”? (He knew) that she had conceived. And she saw his [Cain’s] likeness that it was not of the earthly beings, but of the heavenly beings, and she prophesied and said: “I have gotten a man with the Lord.”

In other words, when Eve gave birth to Cain, she found out that he did not look so much human as he did an angel - at which she knew that the child’s father was not Adam, but the angel Samael who came with the serpent. An Aramaic translation-paraphrase (targum) of Genesis, the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, also inserts the same idea into the text:

And Adam knew that his wife Eve had conceived from Sammael the angel (of death) and she became pregnant and bore Cain. And she said: “I have got a man from the angel of the Lord.”

And Adam knew Eve his wife who lusted after the angel; and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, “I have gotten a man, the angel of the Lord.”

While the above sources are quite late, the tradition behind it or something similar (that Cain’s father was the serpent = the angel Samael) was apparently already known in the 2nd century, since St. Irenaeus mentions gnostic groups who seem to have used this idea (Against Heresies 1.30.9 “[The Ophites] affirm that the serpent cast down has two names, Michael and Samael”).

You wrote a complete essay and wasted a lot of time on a pile of B.S.

The Bible doesn’t even hint that Eve had sex with the serpent.

Since she made Adam join her in disobeying God, then Adam had sex with the snake, also.

I’ll stick to God’s Word!

 

[Wesrock]

The first three chapters of Genesis do describe a real historical event. That said, I don’t think it’s necessary that there was a literal garden or that *literally *eating a *literal *fruit is necessarily what happened.

 

[fred_conty]

Fred Conty,
your reply is solid. You wrote " But as a man has reason and freewill by right of his nature". However in heaven people do not have free will.

Thanks. What makes you think that about free will?

 

[fred_conty]

The whole idea that the act that caused the fall of man was sex isn’t new. It was already around since the second Temple period - the time of Jesus - actually.

The idea was, that Eve (the Jewish Rabbis were not too fond of Eve - they often fitted the Genesis story into the ‘killer wife’ motif, where the woman is responsible for the man’s downfall) did have sex - not with Adam (who was obviously meant to be her natural partner), but with the serpent. In other words, the fall of man was apparently caused by interspecies adultery. To those people who thought that the serpent was somehow controlled by or was a manifestation of a fallen angel (Satan, Samael, etc.), this idea of Eve having sex with the serpent (= the fallen angel) sort of dovetails with Genesis 6, where the ‘daughters of men’ are said to have relations with the ‘sons of God’ (identified in an idea common at the time as fallen angels).

Some Jews speculated that the sentient serpent / the angel was infatuated with Eve and seduced her. (Apparently, this was triggered by the wording of Eve’s complaint in Genesis 3:13 - “The serpent deceived me,” and God’s statement in verse 15: “I will put enmity between you and the woman,” suggesting that there was no enmity between the two at this point yet.)

The apocryphal work 4 Maccabees (1st century AD) seem to reflect this whole idea of Eve having sex with the serpent in its retelling of the story of the mother and her seven sons who were martyred:

The mother of seven sons expressed also these principles to her children:
“I was a pure virgin and did not go outside my father’s house; but I guarded the rib from which woman was made.
No seducer corrupted me on a desert plain, nor did the destroyer, the deceitful serpent, defile the purity of my virginity.”

The phrase “the rib from which woman was made” is a clear reference to the story of the creation of Eve in Genesis 2, and the mention of the seduction and the defilement by the serpent would seem to refer to the story of Eve and the serpent in Genesis 3. By having the mother boast that she was not seduced by the serpent, the author implies strongly that Eve was. For example, a few even went as far as to suggest that Cain was actually the snake’s son rather than Adam’s, which to them apparently explains why Cain was (inclined towards) evil: he was the fruit of an unnatural union.

A late Jewish retelling (midrash) of biblical stories, the Pirqe De-Rabbi Eliezer (8th-9th century or earlier), adopts this whole ‘Cain was the son of the serpent’ story.

Sammael was the great prince in heaven: the Chayyot had four wings and the Seraphim had six wings, and Sammael had twelve wings. What did Sammael do? He took his band and descended and saw all the creatures which the Holy One, blessed be He, had created in His world and he found among them none so skilled to do evil as the serpent, as it is said, “Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field.” Its appearance was something like that of the camel, and he mounted and rode upon it. The Torah began to cry aloud, saying, ‘Why, O Sammael! Now that the world is created, is it the time to rebel against the Omnipresent? Is it like the time when thou shouldst lift thyself up on high? The Lord of the world “will laugh at the horse and its rider” (Job 39:18).’

…] (Samael) riding on the serpent came to [Eve], and she conceived; afterwards, Adam came to her, and she conceived Abel, as it is said, “And Adam knew Eve his wife.” What is the meaning of “knew”? (He knew) that she had conceived. And she saw his [Cain’s] likeness that it was not of the earthly beings, but of the heavenly beings, and she prophesied and said: “I have gotten a man with the Lord.”

In other words, when Eve gave birth to Cain, she found out that he did not look so much human as he did an angel - at which she knew that the child’s father was not Adam, but the angel Samael who came with the serpent. An Aramaic translation-paraphrase (targum) of Genesis, the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, also inserts the same idea into the text:

And Adam knew that his wife Eve had conceived from Sammael the angel (of death) and she became pregnant and bore Cain. And she said: “I have got a man from the angel of the Lord.”

And Adam knew Eve his wife who lusted after the angel; and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, “I have gotten a man, the angel of the Lord.”

While the above sources are quite late, the tradition behind it or something similar (that Cain’s father was the serpent = the angel Samael) was apparently already known in the 2nd century, since St. Irenaeus mentions gnostic groups who seem to have used this idea (Against Heresies 1.30.9 “[The Ophites] affirm that the serpent cast down has two names, Michael and Samael”).

:clapping:This was quite interesting and informative.

 

[patrick457]

You wrote a complete essay and wasted a lot of time on a pile of B.S.

The Bible doesn’t even hint that Eve had sex with the serpent.

Since she made Adam join her in disobeying God, then Adam had sex with the snake, also.

I’ll stick to God’s Word!

I personally don’t think it’s B.S. nor the time I spent researching it a waste. Hey, one man’s trash is another man’s treasure.

I don’t believe in it of course, but I just like learning about all these speculations and midrashim, because it tells me something about the mindset of certain segments of Jews at the time and the way Jews sometimes creatively interpreted and read the text.

Re: Adam. No, Adam was not seduced by the serpent. It’s more like the serpent made Eve eat the fruit and seduced her besides. Two distinct events these were held to be.

 

[patrick457]

Interestingly enough, many groups taught that the first sin was sex overall (many of whom were deemed heretical): Gnostic Sethites and Adamites (the latter who did not believe in clothing themselves), and the Quaker Protestant offshoot, the Shakers (of whom there are three members left).

The thing about the Sethites and similar gnostic sects is that they didn’t really hold what happened in the garden to be a sin, but an act of liberation - since the creator of this material world was a false, lower god: the demiurge Yaldabaoth. The serpent was held to be a liberating figure who freed Adam and Eve from Yaldabaoth’s control over them by making them eat the fruit, thereby opening their eyes to the truth.

In fact it isn’t the serpent that seduces Eve, it is the demiurge who attempts to rape Eve because she has within her part of the divine spark or power Yaldabaoth stole from his mother Sophia, one of the Aeons or emanations of the true God (part of that power leaked out of him when he made Adam), and he wants it back.

 

[NoelFitz]

Goout,
agreement seems to be emerging that disobedience was the original sin. How does rebellion differ from this?

 

[NoelFitz]

Gout (re #32)
You ask what I meant in my first post.

Really it was shorthand to ask what happened at the beginning of humankind. Did Adam and Eve exist, was there a garden of Eden, was fruit eaten?

Agreement seems to be emerging. I will look at all the replies again and then summarize.

 

[NoelFitz]

Goout (re #36)
thank you so much for all your positive and helpful contributions. I agree that the CCC is a great source of knowledge about our faith.

 

[NoelFitz]

Goout (re #38),
thanks for correcting me. I learned in school, about 65 years ago, that in heaven our wills are fixed due to the beatific vision and the soul cannot choose to disobey (ie sin).

 

[NoelFitz]

Grannymh (re 38)
I considered your reference to ‘the appearance (space and time)’ as belief in the big bang theory.
Sorry.

 

[NoelFitz]

WEsrock (re #42)
What was the real historical event?

 

[NoelFitz]

Hi everybody,

we have now had more than 50 posts in this thread.

I think there is a consensus that a first couple existed and some sin occurred, one of disobedience.

However there is no certainty about the details of what actually happened. Humility seems to be the correct approach. We cannot know the mind of God, So perhaps it is best to be humble and agnostic before the mysteries of our religion.

Without any doubt, the mystery of our religion is great (1 Tim. 3:16 NRS).

 

[patrick457]

Okay, about this whole sex thing.

Second Temple period Jews looked to one of two or three events in Genesis in an attempt to answer the question of when and how did evil and death come into the world: one is the eating of the fruit in Genesis 3, the other is the mating of the ‘sons of God’ with the ‘daughters of men’ in Genesis 6. (The third is Cain’s murder of Abel, but it is sometimes just considered to be an extension of - the logical conclusion of - the fruit-eating.) As noted, the story of Adam and Eve eating the fruit is sometimes imagined in the same light as the latter event: Eve is also held to have been seduced in some way by the serpent (or rather, a rebellious angel that was controlling / speaking through the serpent) just as the human women in Genesis 5 mated with rebellious angels.

Note: even in these speculations it is not the sex act itself that is held to be responsible. Evil entered into the world not so much because the serpent/the angel had sex with Eve or because the rebellious angels had sex with human women. It is that a violation of the natural order was caused when two different classes of beings - human and angelic - mated with each other. It is thought to be sexual in nature, yes, but it is not the act itself that is condemned - it’s more like lust plus adultery.

In both cases, the union is thought to result in offspring of mixed parentage that prove to be disastrous for humanity in the long run (Cain, the Nephilim). In this idea, Cain and the giants / the Nephilim were evil because they were ‘freaks’ (half-angel, half-human, not being completely both), violations to the established order.

This is just my personal speculation, but I think the reason why contemporary Jews came up with this whole idea of angels seducing women can be found by looking at neighboring cultures. Note that in a number of the cultures that they came into contact with, demigods - half-divine, half-human heroes - were all the rage: Gilgamesh, Hercules, Achilles, Perseus. Far from considering such unions to be good and the product of such unions to be renowned heroes, the Jews apparently thought that it’s all unnatural: surely such interspecies mating is a violation of God’s will?

 

[grannymh]

Grannymh (re 38)
I considered your reference to ‘the appearance (space and time)’ as belief in the big bang theory.
Sorry.

“Space and Time” can refer to any material object in our material world. Of course, you can use space and time as a way to describe the Big Bang. However, weeds in one’s garden are also in space and time.

Space and Time appears in the first three chapters of Genesis.

 

[joseie]

What I don’t understand is why it is fought with tooth and nail against the idea that the original sin was having sex.Could have been even with the serpent as one post pointed out. What is the harm in such a view ? As I said earlier,such a thinking does not make any change in the faith and belief,instead it satisfactorily explains the effects ,actions and reactions subsequently happened.

May be because the church still consider any thing relaing to sexual action or enjoyment as something connected with evil and to be avoided as far as possible.

 

[patrick457]

What I don’t understand is why it is fought with tooth and nail against the idea that the original sin was having sex.Could have been even with the serpent as one post pointed out. What is the harm in such a view ? As I said earlier,such a thinking does not make any change in the faith and belief,instead it satisfactorily explains the effects ,actions and reactions subsequently happened.

May be because the church still consider any thing relaing to sexual action or enjoyment as something connected with evil and to be avoided as far as possible.

Yeah, tell that to Pope John Paul II.

I should point out that this ‘serpent seed’ belief - that Eve had sex with the serpent (or rather, a rebellious angel that was manipulating the serpent or tagging along with it) and that the result of this union was Cain - is heretical. Not so much because sex was involved (we’re not prudish gnostics, we don’t condemn the physical world), but because it goes against traditional Catholic beliefs:

(1) First off, it goes against the idea that angels are bodiless spirits. Sure, ancient Jews imagined the angels were somehow more corporeal (to the point that they are thought to be able to impregnate human women), but that is not what we who now have the fullness of revelation hold. Isn’t this what the Catechism says? “The existence of the spiritual, non-corporeal beings that Sacred Scripture usually calls “angels” is a truth of faith. the witness of Scripture is as clear as the unanimity of Tradition.”

(2) Modern varieties of the serpent seed theory claim that a part of humanity are actually the descendants of the serpent via Cain (which could and does lead to all sorts of racist mentality). Which contradicts the belief that all humanity are descended from just Adam and Eve. It’s not Adam, Eve and the serpent. It isn’t Catholic teaching that a portion of humanity are somehow part-reptile or part-angel/part-devil, which is what some modern adherents of the idea seem to hold.

The belief is an interesting historical curiosity (that is how I see it), but as a Christian you cannot hold it seriously. I found someone’s post explaining what’s wrong with it:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3529334&postcount=1
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3529337&postcount=2

 

[thementalwombat]

Good sources. I will only add that the view that the Church thinks sex is “dirty” is the very opposite of what the Church teaches, and I expect that is why there is so much resistance to the idea.

Saint John Paul II’s Theology of the Body as linked above is the consummate exposition on the Catholic view on human sexuality, and I highly recommend it. If it is too dense to get through (which I don’t think anyone should be embarrassed to admit, it is a difficult read) Christopher West’s The Good News About Sex and Marriage does a reasonable job covering some of the basic.

I would also refer you to the Catechism of the Catholic Church 2362 which paints a very positive view of human sexuality, saying among other things that, “Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure…the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them.”

 

[grannymh]

I think current thinking is more that they didn’t really exist, non?

The Catholic Church continues to maintain that Adam and Eve exist as the original two founders of our human species.

If they didn’t know the difference between good and evil and if they didn’t have wisdom…why would God expect them to make the choice he wanted them to make?
That would be unwise and unloving of God.

The Catholic Church examines the evidence in the first three chapters of Genesis and properly concludes that Adam has a complete human nature. Therefore, Adam not only knows the difference between good and evil, he can freely choose either good or evil.

 

[thementalwombat]

The Catholic Church examines the evidence in the first three chapters of Genesis and properly concludes that Adam has a complete human nature. Therefore, Adam not only knows the difference between good and evil, he can freely choose either good or evil

Indeed. I would point out that you do not have to have full knowledge about every aspect of something to know whether it is good or evil any more than you need to know how electricity works to know that when you stick your finger in an electrical socket you’re going to get electrocuted.